Friends:
Perhaps I can clarify this allegation a bit. To be transparent, I am Chip Barber. From 1989-2001 I worked for the World Resources Institute in DC, based in the Philippines from 1994-2001, and we did joint work with IMA from 1996-2001 to expose the cyanide fishing issue in printed reports, TV coverage, etc. I was with IMA as DC Rep and VP for one year, Oct 2001-Sept 2002. I left because of IMA's perilous financial situation (and, by extension, my own). I am currently working as an independent consultant on various environmental issues.
A great deal of IMA's funding came from the USAID East Asia-Pacific Environmental Initiative (EAPEI) from 1998-2001. In May 2001, EAPEI informed IMA they would get another grant. Due to screw-ups in the Bush administration, the funds, which were formally promised, were not forthcoming until mid-2002. Having budgeted for those promised funds (a formal promise), IMA's president chose to borrow some restricted funds temporarily to cover general expenses. The alternative was to shut down some worthy programs. This led to a situation where IMA was in breach of the terms of a restricted grant with one foundation. The funds were restored to the proper accounts eventually, but the fallout affected the organization's reputation with other funders, with whom, in truth, IMA had never had a problem of any sort. But foundation lawyers are careful types, and the result was a "blacklisting" of IMA with some of their former funders.
Yes, this was a breach of the rules, there is no doubt. But it is wholly inaccurate to say that this had anything to do with anyone mis-appropriating funds for their own personal use, or anything like that. This was merely a matter of a rash and poor decision, admittedly, to try and keep some worthy programs going due to the incredible incompetence and screwups of the US government, specifically the Bush administration.
I do not defend what IMA did in legal terms, it was wrong. But it was not done out of venal motives, it was done to try and keep some things going that needed to be kept going. As an example, IMA was the only organization providing any data at all on the Hong Kong live reef food fish trade, and did a good job of that for a number of years. That program is now closed, due to a lack of funding, and as a result, we are once again in the dark about the volume, value and dynamics of that trade.
IMA ran the only cyanide testing labs that have ever existed, anywhere, and did so very well for quite a few years, despite the contemptible practices of BFAR with respect to paying IMA for the services BFAR had contracted IMA for. IMA was ripped off by BFAR for a great deal of money, and the posts by some here about how IMA was rolling in money would be laughably ignorant, if the consequences weren't so dire for the reefs in the Philippines. In place of a functioning cyanide testing regime, what we have is MAC not doing much on the testing issue, and lots of people posting on an obscure internet site.
I am not saying IMA's work was perfect, it had lots of flaws, no doubt, and there were lots of mistakes. But for God's sake, they tried to do something about the issue, and I don't see anyone doing much but bellyaching these days -- and certainly not much notable is going on on the ground.
So I hope that clarifies things.
